Opinion

Wittler v. Baumgartner

  • 180 Neb. 446
  • 144 N.W.2d 62
  • 1966 Neb. LEXIS 553
Court
Nebraska Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 24, 1966
Status
Published
Author
Smith
On the bench
Carter, Spencer, Boslaugh, Brower, Smith, McCown, Scheele
Cited by
33 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.8%

Overruled on other grounds by State Ex Rel. Douglas v. Nebraska Mortgage Finance Fund, 204 Neb. 445 (1979)

act creating a public corporation for a public purpose held unconstitutional as creating a corporation by a special act

How later courts described this case

  • act creating a public corporation for a public purpose held unconstitutional as creating a corporation by a special act

Written by the judges who cited it.

Later courts went against this

  • Overruled on other grounds by State Ex Rel. Douglas v. Nebraska Mortgage Finance Fund, 204 Neb. 445 (1979)

    180 Neb. 446 , 144 N.W.2d 62 (1966), overruled in part on other grounds, State ex rel. Douglas v. Nebraska Mortgage Finance Fund, 204 Neb. 445 , 283 N.W.2d 12
    Nebraska Supreme CourtAug 21, 19795 citing opinionsother groundsRead it

The opinion

Boslaugh and Smith, JJ.,

dissenting in part.

We respectfully dissent from the part of the majority opinion which holds that the grid system law contravenes Article XII, section 1, Constitution of Nebraska, our concurrence in the other parts being noted, The majority opinion announces that a law creating a single public corporation is necessarily special within the constitutional prohibition, and it strips the Legislature of power to cast a state instrumentality in the form of a public corporation, though the corporation be under a duty to serve equally every person and every locality.

The conclusion in the majority opinion is extreme. *463 It is not thrust upon us by our decisions involving local corporations. It breaks with our settled definition of general and special laws. It is a far cry from the purpose of the constitutional provision, from the elimination of logrolling, and other well-known evils of special legislation. See, State ex rel. Kauer v. Defenbacher, 153 Ohio St. 268 , 91 N. E. 2d 512 ; Ennis v. State Highway Commission, 231 Ind. 311 , 108 N. E. 2d 687 ; Indiana State Toll Bridge Commission v. Minor, 236 Ind. 193 , 139 N. E. 2d 445 ; Orbison v. Welsh, 242 Ind. 385 , 179 N. E. 2d 727 ; State ex rel. Carter v. Harris, 273 Ala. 374, 377 , 141 So. 2d 175, 177 . We regret the mistake — the majority opinion placing form ahead of substance. See, State ex rel. Johnson v. Consumers Public Power Dist., 143 Neb. 753 , 10 N. W. 2d 784 , 152 A. L. R. 480; State ex rel. Wheeler v. Stuht, 52 Neb. 209 , 71 N. W. 941 .

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.